2 SLIGHTLY different plays - 2 VERY different calls

[just another ref]

Casebook 4.44.3 Situation A: d A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it bounces. Ruling: a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.


In this case, the book specifies that the ruling did not prevent the release of the ball on a pass or shot. On paper, then, this ruling is undeniable. But in the real world I would think that if B1 touches the ball, more often A1 will be given the benefit of the doubt that B1 knocked the ball loose. Therefore A1 will be allowed to recover the ball in any way without penalty.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Casebook 4.44.3 Situation A: d A1 jumps to try for goal. B1 also jumps and touches the ball and A1 drops it to the floor and touches it first after it bounces. Ruling: a violation for starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.


In this case, the book specifies that the ruling did not prevent the release of the ball on a pass or shot. On paper, then, this ruling is undeniable. But in the real world I would think that if B1 touches the ball, more often A1 will be given the benefit of the doubt that B1 knocked the ball loose. Therefore A1 will be allowed to recover the ball in any way without penalty.

I completely disagree. Why penalize the defense?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I completely disagree. Why penalize the defense?

How does what JAR said penalize the defense?

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

How does what JAR said penalize the defense?

He is saying that the benefit of the doubt goes to the player that is stuck in the air with less of a chance to make the basket becuause the defensive player got a hand on the ball.

If A1 jumps for a 3pt try and B1 jumps with him and touches the ball (doesn't knock it lose or create a held ball), JAR is saying that A1 should be able to drop the ball and recover it. This would be bailing out the offensive player thereby penalizing the defense.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

He is saying that the benefit of the doubt goes to the player that is stuck in the air with less of a chance to make the basket becuause the defensive player got a hand on the ball.

If A1 jumps for a 3pt try and B1 jumps with him and touches the ball (doesn't knock it lose or create a held ball), JAR is saying that A1 should be able to drop the ball and recover it. This would be bailing out the offensive player thereby penalizing the defense.

Well, if the defense didn't do anything to stop the play, or steal the ball, then why reward them?

I think what JAR is saying, is that if you can't tell whether or not the touch of the defender had an effect on the play, then you have to decide to whom you'll give the benefit of the doubt. It's unfair either way, I suppose. So how do you decide?

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Well, if the defense didn't do anything to stop the play, or steal the ball, then why reward them?

I think what JAR is saying, is that if you can't tell whether or not the touch of the defender had an effect on the play, then you have to decide to whom you'll give the benefit of the doubt. It's unfair either way, I suppose. So how do you decide?

BUT the defense DID stop the play by making A1 drop the ball instead of shoot it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

BUT the defense DID stop the play by making A1 drop the ball instead of shoot it.

Okay, HOW did B make A1 drop the ball? By brushing it lightly with his hand? Well, if you're sure that's what happened you can call a travel. When I see a play like this, unless I'm 100% certain that the defensive touch had no force whatever, I'm calling it either a shot or a steal, and A1 can recover and dribble again.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I think what JAR is saying, is that if you can't tell whether or not the touch of the defender had an effect on the play, then you have to decide to whom you'll give the benefit of the doubt. It's unfair either way, I suppose. So how do you decide?

That is, more or less, what I was saying. This, I think, is among the most delicate of judgment calls. Defender touched the ball. I did not think it was held firmly enough to be called a held ball. Now did he contact the ball firmly enough to knock it free, or did A1 drop the ball intentionally? If you do not know, you call nothing, which, in this case does favor the offense.

Every call/no call is perceived as unfair by someone.

We decide this just like everything else, the best we can. That's why we get the big bucks.